In November, 1914, four vessels of Norwegian register, the Kim, the Alfred Nobel, the Bjornstjerne Bjornson, and the Fridland, bound from New York to Copenhagen, were captured on their voyage by British warships and their cargoes were seized on the ground that the foodstuffs, which constituted the bulk of the shipments, were conditional contraband suspected of being destined for the government or armed forces of Germany.

At the time when the Emden and all other German ships had ended their careers on the high seas, and England thought herself safe from the inroads of German cruisers on the ocean, about the middle of January, 1916, the Liverpool liner Appam disappeared on a voyage from Dakar, West Africa, to Plymouth, England. This ship had left its port of departure on January 11th and was expectgd in Plymouth the 21st of that month. After four days, wireless communication with the vessel ceased suddenly, and as nothing was heard of the ship during the following days, it was given up for lost. It was admitted that it had either gone down in a severe storm which had been raging on the West African coast, or had been sunk by a German submarine which had extended its radius of action.

The arrival of the fine British passenger vessel Appam at Newport News on January 31, 1916, in charge of a German prize crew and with about four hundred and fifty British subjects, passengers and sailors, including the Governor of Sierra Leone and some other prominent officials, not only created a picturesque situation, but raised some very important problems of international law.

A Merchant ship captured in war by a cruiser is commonly put in the hands of a prize crew and, often with her own master and crew aboard, directed to proceed to the nearest port of the captor available for adjudication as to prize or no prize

The cases in which the original master and crew have, during such transit, risen against the prize crew and, by force or fraud or both regained control of the ship are fairly numerous. It is proposed to examine the legality of such a course, and the rights derived therefrom; also the rights in the premises of the belUgerent whose possession is displaced.

The summary review in the previous article of the historical events which culminated in the creation of the Hellenic Kingdom, and the vicissitudes which Greece underwent from the time of the declaration of her independence up to the year 1911, when her Constitution of 1864 was revised, plainly show that the Hellenic people never for a moment thought of submitting themselves to autocracy, but on the contrary asserted their determination to live under a democracy. Hence the murder of their first president, or governor Capodistrias, the deposition of their first king, Otho, and the abjuration now by a large section of the Hellenic nation both in and out of Greece, of their present ruler, Constantine, who, under the cloak of the Constitution, rules the part of the country still under his dominion, not as a constitutional King of the Hellenes, but as an absolute monarch.

In 1785 Prussia ratified a treaty with the United States providing in its twenty-third article 1 that in case of war between the contracting powers: